What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.
No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.
Interesting article from back in 2010. They were already considering the sale of people's info sometime earlier than this article was published.
Now, to clarify. Google states that they are not selling "personally identifiable information". They use that phrase, or one very similar. It doesn't mean that they aren't selling your data.
To be honest, I don't see the difference between devs using UDID or their own system. The end result is still them being able to track users. Unless Apple is forbidding tracking in general, I don't really see the point in this.
Also, does it say anywhere whether Apple or iAds is also not allowed to track using UDID?
It stops third party advertisers/developers offering prizes like free in-game currency to users who download all the other specified apps in a group. It is currently possible because the advertiser can check if both apps have been accessed by the same iOS device.
It also allows in-app advertisers to know which apps you own and how much time you spend on each etc.
An ad-hoc system will be different because there is no way to link both apps to the same user without having them provide identifying data (like an email address).
No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.
Sorry, I should have clarified. They may be able to see the MAC address of your router. If its your private router, at home, say, then effectively, they can see your MAC address.
It's complex, because as others have brought up, ARP should prevent that, and it does, most of the time. But if you're with an iSP, and you don't use a router, your ISP could have your MAC address, on theirs, which could be subject to interception. This also has something to do with Java and Java scripts, but I don't remember all of that as I haven't worked with it for some time.
I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.
There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Developers will do anything, legal or not, to get at your information. They can't make a living without selling ads. Unless developers are actively shut out from accessing your private data (like Apple is doing) they will continue to sell your data to the highest bidder.
And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!
Yes, MAC addresses are used to request an IP address for a network but do cellular connections use a MAC address or some other logical address pulled from the HW? It's my understanding that is what the IMEI is for.
Also, GPRS is the packet service atop GSM which would have already completed the handshake and authenticated you on the network.
Actually,the SIM card authenticates the device(tablet,phone) to the cellular network .
Yes you are absolutely right in stating that GPRS sits on top of the GSM network.
But consider this,without an IP address how will Towe handover take place when you are moving within different coverage zone.
The MAC address is etched on the NIC card of the device and this in conjunction with the SIM authenticates the device into a cellular network.
Also,IMEI number is suppossed to be unique.However,you have many counterfeit phones in the market(think low cost touchscreen phones by fly-by-night-operators) which actually copies the same IMEI into their phones.There has been a talk among handset makers to standardise IMEI and maintain all the IMEI ina database by a regulatory body.However,I am not sure how far it is gone.So till then I guess we'll be seing Chinese counterfeit phones on the market
Interesting article from back in 2010. They were already considering the sale of people's info sometime earlier than this article was published.
Now, to clarify. Google states that they are not selling "personally identifiable information". They use that phrase, or one very similar. It doesn't mean that they aren't selling your data.
That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.
And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.
Developers will do anything, legal or not, to get at your information. They can't make a living without selling ads. Unless developers are actively shut out from accessing your private data (like Apple is doing) they will continue to sell your data to the highest bidder.
And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!
What developers do is use any of the different ad networks out there, I am just about to do that today myself as asked by a client. Or use an analytics package. The number of free apps with out some analytic, or ads, attached is small. It is within these SDKs that the UDID is retrieved. individual devs may not care.
( although Flurry had a patch recently).
The other reason is as I said, to get some of your own analysis in your own web service. To tell the number of devices, as a proxy of users, from web services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Speak for yourself. Let the rest of the developer community do the same.
Well anybody who uses ads uses this, as of now. .
Its time to move on from the idea of a developer in a bedroom. This is a multi-billion pound industry, and marketing apps are all the rage. Knowing a random device is useful to individual devs and individual app analytics, but tells us nothing else about the user on its own ( if the user has agreed to add some information, then he has signed up as data). on the other hand if the analytic houses, or ad providers, are correlating data from UDIDs then ban that.
I think all that is happening here is a largely cosmetic "fix" to a non-problem. I could post my UDID here, what violation of privacy would that entail? Given that the same OS allowed until recently the full access to contacts without a request, and still allows access to all your photos without a request, this is sheer silliness. I think Apple is acting un-competively, and I bet it gets device information in iAds - where is it not restricted to the ( once legal) UDID, but can access the ( always illegal for non-Apple developers) serial number etc.
There goes the great site called testflight (testflightapp.com). That site made it very easy for developers to deploy beta builds of apps to beta testers. The app/browser should just ask if you want to allow access. Why deny it completely when there are good uses for it?
There goes the great site called testflight (testflightapp.com). That site made it very easy for developers to deploy beta builds of apps to beta testers.
That's what the local distribution testing (and to a lesser extent, promo codes) is for. You can send it to 50 machines before you push it out to the store, I believe.
I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.
There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Again there is nothing here about selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Not everything is an evil plot.
Actually, it was mentioned in the first article, and hinted at in the second, as per the part I quoted.
That's what the local distribution testing (and to a lesser extent, promo codes) is for. You can send it to 50 machines before you push it out to the store, I believe.
That doesn't even come close to the ease of deploying to users via testflightapp.com. I assume you are not a developer based on your comment.
That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.
And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.
What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.
All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.
What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.
All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.
I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.
It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.
I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.
It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.
It's Google that's passing the FUD around by making the kind of statements they do. By saying that they don't sell user info that's traceable back to an individual user, they aren't denying they are selling that info, just that, supposedly, those to whom they are selling it can't tell whose info it is.
You should at least admit the possibility from everything that's been reported.
Comments
What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.
No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.
Oh boy.
http://gizmodo.com/5609061/leaked-go...ling-user-data
I'll update as I get time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...r-data-privacy
Notice the "other revenue-raising purposes". I wonder what they could be?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection
Interesting article from back in 2010. They were already considering the sale of people's info sometime earlier than this article was published.
Now, to clarify. Google states that they are not selling "personally identifiable information". They use that phrase, or one very similar. It doesn't mean that they aren't selling your data.
To be honest, I don't see the difference between devs using UDID or their own system. The end result is still them being able to track users. Unless Apple is forbidding tracking in general, I don't really see the point in this.
Also, does it say anywhere whether Apple or iAds is also not allowed to track using UDID?
It stops third party advertisers/developers offering prizes like free in-game currency to users who download all the other specified apps in a group. It is currently possible because the advertiser can check if both apps have been accessed by the same iOS device.
It also allows in-app advertisers to know which apps you own and how much time you spend on each etc.
An ad-hoc system will be different because there is no way to link both apps to the same user without having them provide identifying data (like an email address).
No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.
Sorry, I should have clarified. They may be able to see the MAC address of your router. If its your private router, at home, say, then effectively, they can see your MAC address.
It's complex, because as others have brought up, ARP should prevent that, and it does, most of the time. But if you're with an iSP, and you don't use a router, your ISP could have your MAC address, on theirs, which could be subject to interception. This also has something to do with Java and Java scripts, but I don't remember all of that as I haven't worked with it for some time.
Oh boy.
http://gizmodo.com/5609061/leaked-go...ling-user-data
I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.
There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...r-data-privacy
Notice the "other revenue-raising purposes". I wonder what they could be?
Again there is nothing here about selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Not everything is an evil plot.
And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!
Bad move. Pissing about 90% of devs off.
Speak for yourself. Let the rest of the developer community do the same.
Yes, MAC addresses are used to request an IP address for a network but do cellular connections use a MAC address or some other logical address pulled from the HW? It's my understanding that is what the IMEI is for.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...pment_Identity
Also, GPRS is the packet service atop GSM which would have already completed the handshake and authenticated you on the network.Actually,the SIM card authenticates the device(tablet,phone) to the cellular network .
Yes you are absolutely right in stating that GPRS sits on top of the GSM network.
But consider this,without an IP address how will Towe handover take place when you are moving within different coverage zone.
The MAC address is etched on the NIC card of the device and this in conjunction with the SIM authenticates the device into a cellular network.
Also,IMEI number is suppossed to be unique.However,you have many counterfeit phones in the market(think low cost touchscreen phones by fly-by-night-operators) which actually copies the same IMEI into their phones.There has been a talk among handset makers to standardise IMEI and maintain all the IMEI ina database by a regulatory body.However,I am not sure how far it is gone.So till then I guess we'll be seing Chinese counterfeit phones on the market
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection
Interesting article from back in 2010. They were already considering the sale of people's info sometime earlier than this article was published.
Now, to clarify. Google states that they are not selling "personally identifiable information". They use that phrase, or one very similar. It doesn't mean that they aren't selling your data.
That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.
And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.
Developers will do anything, legal or not, to get at your information. They can't make a living without selling ads. Unless developers are actively shut out from accessing your private data (like Apple is doing) they will continue to sell your data to the highest bidder.
And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!
What developers do is use any of the different ad networks out there, I am just about to do that today myself as asked by a client. Or use an analytics package. The number of free apps with out some analytic, or ads, attached is small. It is within these SDKs that the UDID is retrieved. individual devs may not care.
( although Flurry had a patch recently).
The other reason is as I said, to get some of your own analysis in your own web service. To tell the number of devices, as a proxy of users, from web services.
Speak for yourself. Let the rest of the developer community do the same.
Well anybody who uses ads uses this, as of now. .
Its time to move on from the idea of a developer in a bedroom. This is a multi-billion pound industry, and marketing apps are all the rage. Knowing a random device is useful to individual devs and individual app analytics, but tells us nothing else about the user on its own ( if the user has agreed to add some information, then he has signed up as data). on the other hand if the analytic houses, or ad providers, are correlating data from UDIDs then ban that.
I think all that is happening here is a largely cosmetic "fix" to a non-problem. I could post my UDID here, what violation of privacy would that entail? Given that the same OS allowed until recently the full access to contacts without a request, and still allows access to all your photos without a request, this is sheer silliness. I think Apple is acting un-competively, and I bet it gets device information in iAds - where is it not restricted to the ( once legal) UDID, but can access the ( always illegal for non-Apple developers) serial number etc.
Oh poor developers ? who gives a shit, just suck it up like the rest of of the people do.
Troll.
There goes the great site called testflight (testflightapp.com). That site made it very easy for developers to deploy beta builds of apps to beta testers.
That's what the local distribution testing (and to a lesser extent, promo codes) is for. You can send it to 50 machines before you push it out to the store, I believe.
I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.
There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Again there is nothing here about selling personal data to 3rd parties.
Not everything is an evil plot.
Actually, it was mentioned in the first article, and hinted at in the second, as per the part I quoted.
That's what the local distribution testing (and to a lesser extent, promo codes) is for. You can send it to 50 machines before you push it out to the store, I believe.
That doesn't even come close to the ease of deploying to users via testflightapp.com. I assume you are not a developer based on your comment.
That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.
And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.
What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.
All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.
That doesn't even come close to the ease of deploying to users via testflightapp.com. I assume you are not a developer based on your comment.
Just haven't done a large-scale pre-release push out.
What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.
All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.
I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.
It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.
I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.
It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.
It's Google that's passing the FUD around by making the kind of statements they do. By saying that they don't sell user info that's traceable back to an individual user, they aren't denying they are selling that info, just that, supposedly, those to whom they are selling it can't tell whose info it is.
You should at least admit the possibility from everything that's been reported.